From the very inception of the Zionist project, the colonists needed to justify their claims to Palestine. Some of their talking points have shifted over time to adapt to new sensibilities. For example, in the beginning they didn’t try and frame themselves as part of some decolonial movement for indigenous rights, on the contrary, they began by justifying their claim on Palestine precisely because they were colonists who would bring civilization to a “backwards” land [You can read more about this here]. However, some talking points have remained quite consistent, such as those specifically designed to dehumanize Palestinians and portray them as irrational and bloodthirsty. This becomes exceedingly clear when you encounter the Israeli narrative of the Nakba or the “peace process”.
One of the cornerstones of this is the exaggeration of the role of the British appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Haj Amin al-Husseini, who sought different audiences with both Mussolini and Hitler. His infamous picture with Hitler is often shared as indisputable proof that Palestinians are animated by an irrational hatred for everything Jewish, and that their rejection of establishing an ethnocracy on most of their homeland must stem from this same hatred.
This exaggeration reached ludicrous degrees, with even Netanyahu claiming that the Mufti actually inspired the Holocaust. We are asked to believe that Hitler, with a history of rampant genocidal and antisemitic thought, was inspired by some Middle Eastern Mufti he deemed inferior. Not to mention that the construction of the death camps had already began before their meeting ever happened. There is no need to go into detail to debunk these ridiculous remarks, as they were rightfully lambasted by Holocaust scholars who set the record straight on the matter. But I do believe there are some crucial missing details to this whole discussion. Let us take a few steps back, away from the sensationalism of the picture and the exaggerations, and try and situate all of this in its proper historical context.
It should be noted that various Zionist leaders and groups also sought similar alliances with Hitler and Mussolini. The Mufti believed, as many Zionist leaders did at the time, that Britain was the obstacle for the realization of their goal, and that an alliance with the axis forces was the best way to remove said obstacle.
For example, on more than one occasion Avraham Stern, founder and leader of the infamous Stern gang (Lehi), sought to forge an alliance with Hitler, even offering to take part in the war on Germany’s side. All of this would be in return for German support to establish a “totalitarian Hebrew republic” in Palestine. This isn’t some small fringe group, members of Lehi would go on to occupy the highest echelons of Israeli government, and even the position of Prime Minister. Stern is still revered today in Israel, and has a settlement named in his honor, as well as a postage stamp.
As a matter of fact, there was an entire Naval Academy in fascist Italy to train Zionist militias. This was the Betar Naval Academy, and it was built and operated with fascist blessings. Many future commanders of the Israeli navy would train here under fascist supervision. The cadets at this academy were supportive of Mussolini’s regime, and supported Italy’s expansionist colonial wars in Africa, most notably the second Italo-Ethiopian war.
However, when cases such as these are brought up, it is often claimed that these were alliances of necessity; that the Zionist militias merely followed the adage of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Suddenly, it becomes a nuanced discussion on political expedience with no allusion to any ideological kinship, with real attempts to situate their actions in their historical context.
On the other hand, when it comes to Palestinians, all of this is stripped away, and the only explanation is that the Mufti was an enthusiastic Nazi, and all of his actions were animated purely by irrational hatred. Could it also possibly be the case that he also sought the “enemy of his enemy”? We can argue all day about the intentions of all these people, and speculate about their actions and motivations, and it is not the aim of this article to absolve anyone, however, it calls for intellectual and moral consistency. If by seeking an alliance with Hitler and Mussolini to combat the British you brand the Mufti a Nazi and a fascist, then at least consistently apply this same logic to various Zionist leaders and militias who did the exact same thing.
Ultimately, none of this justifies the exaggerated importance relegated to the role of the Mufti, who when all things considered, was a rather powerless politician in exile who couldn’t even muster his own people to fight at the outset of the 1948 war. Suggesting that he was the mastermind behind the genocide of European Jewry is Holocaust-denial for the sake of demonizing Palestinians.
- Pappe, Ilan. The Rise and Fall of a Palestinian Dynasty: The Husaynis, 1700 1948. Univ of California Press, 2010.
- Mattar, Philip. The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement. Columbia University Press, 1992.
- Massad, Joseph. “The persistence of the Palestinian Question.” Cultural Critique 59, 2005: 1-23.